Hanuman Yadav @ Anil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13334 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2019 Thana- SURYAPUR District- Rohtas ====================================================== HANUMAN YADAV @ ANIL YADAV Son of Ramal Yadav Resident of Village - Agrer, Kala, P.S.- Suryapura, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pawan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 164 of 2019, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, Sasaram, Rohtas.
The accusation is that nine persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner, variously armed with weapon came at the door of the informant Bipin Bihari and forbade his son not to tie cow there, when son of informant made protest claiming the land then Krishna Murari started to cause assault through fist and slaps to the son of informant. Thereafter, informant and his wife rushed to save his son then they were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13334 of 2020(3) dt.16-06-2020 2/2 also assaulted. In the meantime, Chinta Devi took Katta from her house and handed over the same to the petitioner, then petitioner fired through Katta causing injury at waist of his son, who is under treatment at Karuna Hospital, Vikramganj. The cause of occurrence is said to be land dispute. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 31.11.2019.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner and also the fact that there is specific allegation of causing injury to the son of informant through Katta, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T